Cao v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
26cv0632 DMS SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
YONG BO CAO,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26cv0632 DMS SBC
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
This case comes before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Yong Bo Cao (“Petitioner”). A habeas
petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same screening requirements that
apply to those brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rule(s)”); Habeas Rule 1(b) (providing that
district courts may apply the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are not brought under
28 U.S.C. § 2254). Accordingly, a district court “must promptly examine” the petition and,
“[i]f it plainly appears from the petition ... that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the
“judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005).
A petition must state: (1) all grounds for relief, (2) facts that sufficiently support each
asserted ground; (3) an explanation of how these facts give rise to a real possibility that the
Case 3:26-cv-00632-DMS-SBC Document 4 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26cv0632 DMS SBC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
government engaged in unlawful conduct and/or caused some constitutional harm. Habeas
Rules 2(c), 4, and 5(b); Mayle, 545 U.S. at 655; O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420
(9th Cir. 1990).
While a pro se petitioner is not held to the standards of pleading and practice imposed
upon members of the bar—they must, however, state with some specificity the facts upon
which they contend their incarceration is unlawful. Hardison v. Dunbar, 256 F.Supp. 412,
414-15 (N.D. Cal. 1966). A petitioner that fails to do so is not barred from seeking relief
in the future, they must merely file a new petition. Id. (citing Sanders v. United States, 373
U.S. 1, 8 (1963)).
Here, Petitioner did not include any facts in his Petition. Other than writing his
name, identification number, and place of detention, his Petition is blank. Absent any facts
explaining the basis and circumstances of Petitioner’s detention, and actual claims
explaining why he is entitled to relief, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00632-DMS-SBC Document 4 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2